Zali Steggall (Warringah, Independent) Share this | Hansard source

I acknowledge the Leader of the House in respect to this motion and the work that has gone into it, and the consultation with the crossbench in relation to these changes. It is a sign of positive engagement with the larger crossbench that consideration has been given to the proportion of the opposition that the crossbench now constitutes. That is reflected in the elements of this motion, in particular when it comes to question time and the amendment to standing order 65A, which is set out very clearly. On behalf of Warringah, I welcome the clarification of the opportunity for crossbench members to participate in this chamber. That is good.

On the element around decreased time for questions in question time, whilst I know there is some dispute about the reduction from 45 seconds to 30 seconds by the Father of the House, the clarity is welcomed around the procedure for when questions will be available, for the timing and for ensuring question time proceeds without as many disruptions as occurred in the last parliament. I should note that in fact it was the government whilst in opposition that often disrupted question time with suspensions of standing orders to make their point. It should be noted that disruption in the House has been caused by both major parties.

In relation to the motion, I have an amendment that I understand is being circulated. I move:

(1) Omit proposed standing order 85(c), substitute:

(c) If the second reading of a bill is agreed to and any message from the Governor-General announced, the bill then to be taken as a whole during consideration in detail, if required, with any detail amendments to be moved together and the mover to speak for a maximum of five minutes, without further debate, and any government amendments to the bill which have been circulated to be treated as if they had been moved together, any opposition amendments which have been circulated to be treated as if they had been moved together, and any amendments by crossbench Members which have been circulated to be treated as if they had been moved as one set per Member, with:

(i) one question to be put on all the government amendments;

(ii) one question then to be put on all opposition amendments;

(iii) separate questions then to be put on any sets of amendments circulated by crossbench Members; and

(iv) any further questions necessary to complete the remaining stages of the bill to be put without delay.

I understand that the member for Melbourne will second this amendment. In terms of the substance of this amendment, it addresses the concern that this decision to amend the standing orders for declaring bills urgent bills does in fact have the effect of curtailing the opportunity for consideration in detail amendments. That is not good. It goes against the purpose of this chamber to debate provisions of legislation. That consideration in detail stage is incredibly important.

In fact, in the last parliament when the environmental protection and biodiversity conservation bill was introduced I had circulated amendments, but the now opposition, when in government, chose to suspend the standing orders to curtail that period of debate, to jump across the third reading stage and consideration in detail and to go straight to a vote. I argued at the time that it was incredibly undemocratic in curtailing the purpose of this House. There are concerns about the lack of definition from the government in this motion as to what constitutes an urgent matter. It is taken at the moment from the Manager of Government Business's comments that these are urgent issues of national significance. I would request that greater specificity of urgent matters be provided by way of undertaking.

This amendment provides that consideration in detail is not done away with when matters are considered urgent. Unlike the old procedure of suspending standing orders, it means we retain the ability to move consideration in detail amendments. Debate will simply be curtailed, and opposition members and members of the crossbench must move amendments as a block and have a limit of five minutes speaking time on those amendments. I think that is a fair compromise between urgency of a matter needing to proceed through the House to get to the other place and respecting the purpose of this place, which is that we debate legitimately the effect of a bill and are able to put consideration in detail amendments.

See this speech in context